cancel2 2022
Canceled
He was talking about frontline infantry and specifically Marines, the standard for GIs is much lower.
Explaining women in combat arms
- Thread starter SR_
- Start date
He was talking about frontline infantry and specifically Marines, the standard for GIs is much lower.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Here's some of SR's posts from the last combat thread. I put the link in because most of his comments were too long to C&P. He can be so condescending about women.
1. "This has more to do with the definition of a combat unit, and what those units are tasked to do. I was under the command of 3/10 on my first tour, and 3/10 held an AO just like 3/4 (the grunt unit I was physically attached too), 1/6, 2/2, or any other infantry unit. Of course the Marine Corps works a little different than the Army in terms of artillery and other similar "back of the front" roles.
We did have "lioness" plts, that might from time to time attach to us for a few patrols only because the nature of the indigenous culture (ie, not having men talk to local women). But these females were not depended upon, nor could they be to perform combat related missions on their own or in support of anyone else.
There are three main reasons why women dont belong in combat units. The first is their immediate effect on unit cohesion, morale and discipline. The second is the psychological effects and unit effectiveness issues that arise with dead woman, mangled and blown up, littering the battlefield. The third is physiological. Women are not as physically able to perform to the necessary requirements for some combat units.
This is really only geared towards US Marine Corps and US Army ground infantry units, armor, or USMC Artillery units. Most everyone else already gets the necessary uses out of female military members.
The point is ENTIRELY about capability to do the job on an individual level, or on a units level to have that unit be capable of mission accomplishment, ... their GENDER is what is an enormous part OF PERFORMANCE... "
2. "Im not even going to get into the physiology of the differences between males and females... despite what you may see as effective performance the female body is not built for combat. The American female psyche is not programmed for combat."
3. "Could you find a woman to successfully complete just your basic infantry training course in the Marine Corps, much less, RECON, SNIPER, MARSOC, or any of the other specialized units in the US military including all branches? Of course you could. Im sure she exists somewhere. Could she then figure out a way to integrate herself into a unit dominated by males? im sure its possible. Could she then learn to lead other men and maintain her capabilities, both mental and physical for years on end? maybe. Can you find one to do ALL THREE. extremely doubtful. Could you then find a special collection of these elite male operators to embrace her in their unit. Be able to do their jobs after she has been shot in the face, or as she is being taken prisoner. Could you find these men and place her with them out in the middle of nowhere for months on end without her becoming a distraction...since you have to build and develop different facilities for her to take care of her female needs. Can ALL of this exist in a successful setting?
In hollywood... absolutely. In real life? no "
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...e-allowed-in-combat-units&p=760037#post760037
1. "This has more to do with the definition of a combat unit, and what those units are tasked to do. I was under the command of 3/10 on my first tour, and 3/10 held an AO just like 3/4 (the grunt unit I was physically attached too), 1/6, 2/2, or any other infantry unit. Of course the Marine Corps works a little different than the Army in terms of artillery and other similar "back of the front" roles.
We did have "lioness" plts, that might from time to time attach to us for a few patrols only because the nature of the indigenous culture (ie, not having men talk to local women). But these females were not depended upon, nor could they be to perform combat related missions on their own or in support of anyone else.
There are three main reasons why women dont belong in combat units. The first is their immediate effect on unit cohesion, morale and discipline. The second is the psychological effects and unit effectiveness issues that arise with dead woman, mangled and blown up, littering the battlefield. The third is physiological. Women are not as physically able to perform to the necessary requirements for some combat units.
This is really only geared towards US Marine Corps and US Army ground infantry units, armor, or USMC Artillery units. Most everyone else already gets the necessary uses out of female military members.
The point is ENTIRELY about capability to do the job on an individual level, or on a units level to have that unit be capable of mission accomplishment, ... their GENDER is what is an enormous part OF PERFORMANCE... "
2. "Im not even going to get into the physiology of the differences between males and females... despite what you may see as effective performance the female body is not built for combat. The American female psyche is not programmed for combat."
3. "Could you find a woman to successfully complete just your basic infantry training course in the Marine Corps, much less, RECON, SNIPER, MARSOC, or any of the other specialized units in the US military including all branches? Of course you could. Im sure she exists somewhere. Could she then figure out a way to integrate herself into a unit dominated by males? im sure its possible. Could she then learn to lead other men and maintain her capabilities, both mental and physical for years on end? maybe. Can you find one to do ALL THREE. extremely doubtful. Could you then find a special collection of these elite male operators to embrace her in their unit. Be able to do their jobs after she has been shot in the face, or as she is being taken prisoner. Could you find these men and place her with them out in the middle of nowhere for months on end without her becoming a distraction...since you have to build and develop different facilities for her to take care of her female needs. Can ALL of this exist in a successful setting?
In hollywood... absolutely. In real life? no "
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...e-allowed-in-combat-units&p=760037#post760037
SR_
Junior Member
This is unreal. Ill try to break it down for you even further. There is no such thing as "frontlines"... a female doesnt state shes on the "front line". This, again, as ive mentioned is cinematic. This comes from your "like a movie" perspective of the military. A woman stating she is on the front line has no meaning in terms of a combat arm MOS. THERE ARE NO WOMEN SERVING IN COMBAT MOS's. Do you understand what hearing you say this over and over again is like. This is like you being an astronaut working for NASA and its like me telling you that men are stating they are walking on Mars. But you know because youre in NASA that no men are walking on Mars. But I keep telling you that they are. Would you think I was a fucking dumbass?
You think its a condescending tone, but it isnt, its just simple aggravation at how ignorant you are on even the basics of this issue, even after its broken down to you in terms a child can understand.
And again, ill ask you, what benefits are these women being denied?
christiefan915
Catalyst
More of SR on combat and DADT. Note the first post where he says "it's not really about the physical ability...". I guess he's done a 180 on that. SR uses pretty much the same arguments against women in combat and gays in the military. Had all of us been around in the 40s, we'd probably be reading the very same arguments against blacks in the military.
1. I never suggested the primary reason we keep females out of combat arms is only because they would be a distraction, but its connected in many ways to the primary reasons that you listed (which i agree with). Its not really about the physical ability, though thats part of it, its primarily because the role of woman in our society is seen as the "mother" figure and it being "honorable" to defend women... and children.. and those who cannot fight for themselves. Meaning, during combat the sight of a female unit member being slaughtered or mutilated is too much for the REST of the unit to reasonably accept and move on to continue to fight. But outside of these occasions (meaning combat) which are really very infrequent when compared to down time... the presence of female members in a combat unit degrades their ability to then perform effectively when required.
Im not familiar with the inner workings of the army artillery, but IM POSITIVE that USMC Arty could not sustain female presence and maintain effectiveness because of the way we utilize artillery units... as line units.
2. There is no valid reason in dealing with military readiness, combat effectiveness, or unit cohesion to repeal DADT. There isnt and never will be any argument that states: The US Military will be BETTER, IMPROVED, STRONGER, or more EFFICIENT because a homosexual can now serve OPENLY.
There are valid arguments that deal with the negative effects of allowing openly gay individuals serve within small units, especially those that are tasked with actual combat operations. This entire action on behalf of such a small minority of the population AND the military, that ALREADY had the ability to serve honorably was done to make a few politicians happy in terms of fundraising, and a few activists happy WHO WILL NEVER SERVE ANYWAY.
I dont know why some of you think that anything has been improved or any problem solved. This was just a special interest gift of which there will only be additional costs to EVERYONE and additional problems to the military (which is hardly anyone here).
3. Theres is nothing to provide for this because i havent argued that a homosexual soldier as an individual would be more or less because of the repeal.
The military is not about individuals. It is the effect of the ability of a UNIT that will be compromised... and even this will not be the case for the majority of the military as the majority of the military are not tasked for combat operations.
I do not feel that mechanics, IT, logistics, communications, or garrison activities will be effected at all by introducing an open homosexual into the mix.
But combat arms, meaning, infantry, artillery, armor will be affected, and these categories are also the categories that were overwhelmingly resistant to this change in policy... these parts of the military are ALSO the parts that actually DO THE FIGHTING, and DO THE DYING.. and of which our nations military performances are based upon. Repealing DADT has ZERO positive effect here.. only negatives.. and the reason has nothing to do with an individual.. individuals do not operate in these parts of the military."
Starts with post 265 on the thread, too long to C&P.
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?24004-Don-t-ask-don-t-tell&p=599931#post599931
1. I never suggested the primary reason we keep females out of combat arms is only because they would be a distraction, but its connected in many ways to the primary reasons that you listed (which i agree with). Its not really about the physical ability, though thats part of it, its primarily because the role of woman in our society is seen as the "mother" figure and it being "honorable" to defend women... and children.. and those who cannot fight for themselves. Meaning, during combat the sight of a female unit member being slaughtered or mutilated is too much for the REST of the unit to reasonably accept and move on to continue to fight. But outside of these occasions (meaning combat) which are really very infrequent when compared to down time... the presence of female members in a combat unit degrades their ability to then perform effectively when required.
Im not familiar with the inner workings of the army artillery, but IM POSITIVE that USMC Arty could not sustain female presence and maintain effectiveness because of the way we utilize artillery units... as line units.
2. There is no valid reason in dealing with military readiness, combat effectiveness, or unit cohesion to repeal DADT. There isnt and never will be any argument that states: The US Military will be BETTER, IMPROVED, STRONGER, or more EFFICIENT because a homosexual can now serve OPENLY.
There are valid arguments that deal with the negative effects of allowing openly gay individuals serve within small units, especially those that are tasked with actual combat operations. This entire action on behalf of such a small minority of the population AND the military, that ALREADY had the ability to serve honorably was done to make a few politicians happy in terms of fundraising, and a few activists happy WHO WILL NEVER SERVE ANYWAY.
I dont know why some of you think that anything has been improved or any problem solved. This was just a special interest gift of which there will only be additional costs to EVERYONE and additional problems to the military (which is hardly anyone here).
3. Theres is nothing to provide for this because i havent argued that a homosexual soldier as an individual would be more or less because of the repeal.
The military is not about individuals. It is the effect of the ability of a UNIT that will be compromised... and even this will not be the case for the majority of the military as the majority of the military are not tasked for combat operations.
I do not feel that mechanics, IT, logistics, communications, or garrison activities will be effected at all by introducing an open homosexual into the mix.
But combat arms, meaning, infantry, artillery, armor will be affected, and these categories are also the categories that were overwhelmingly resistant to this change in policy... these parts of the military are ALSO the parts that actually DO THE FIGHTING, and DO THE DYING.. and of which our nations military performances are based upon. Repealing DADT has ZERO positive effect here.. only negatives.. and the reason has nothing to do with an individual.. individuals do not operate in these parts of the military."
Starts with post 265 on the thread, too long to C&P.
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?24004-Don-t-ask-don-t-tell&p=599931#post599931
The kids trying to salvage some dignity out of this SR....give her an out so you won't be at it all night.....these people don't know how to say they're wrong
even though to the rest of board, its obvious....(well her pals won't give in either)....she don't know a front line from a hem line an thinks a mortar is a hat, give her some slack....
her boat only turns to the left....
Don't you understand what is being said there christiefan ?
"Its not really about the physical ability, though thats part of it"..... would it be clearer to you if he said "its not TOTALLY about the physical ability"
Hes not doing a 1 let alone a 180....
Are you sinking to playing the word games like Thingy when you've nothing left but to blow smoke.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Proof that Darla is a transvestite and has a cock.
christiefan915
Catalyst
You've fallen right into the trap and you think I don't understand?
The policy hasn't even been implemented, the military has three years to put it into effect, but SR's talking about it like he's a Monday morning quarterback. That makes his comments prediction and supposition, not fact.
Now I don't expect you to do anything but stick up for your fellow male, but common sense should tell you that we'll only know if this was a good move when it actually happens.
Now go back and read this at least three times, until it sinks in.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
And if you too repeat the LIE that "apparently her fellow male Senators were addressed as "Senator" as opposed to "Sir","
YOU'RE ALSO FULL OF SHIT......THAT IS A OUTRIGHT LIE and I don't doubt it will be perpetuated for years until it too
becomes the truth to you and rest of the pinheads.....distorting history and truth is something you're experts at.....
Last edited:
I'm not referring to any policy of the future and I don't think he was either.....he was speaking more generally...I'm referring to the post he made and the point he was trying to make....."Its not really about the physical ability, though thats part of it, its primarily because....etc...'
certainly he is not doing a 180 on women's physical abilities being an issue....but clearly says its not the ONLY issue....
You read more into my post that is there, which is usually the case with all of you.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
yes.....obviously.....
SR_
Junior Member
Christiefan,
My thoughts on this issue are not to predict failure. In the arena of the military, failure cannot be pegged to any single cause. The prediction of failure has no definition.
My concern is the security risk to the nation, and the risk of loss of life, IF a policy, any policy, is enacted for no good necessity and the level of concern is tied directly to the risk management.
What I would hope is that individual citizens such as yourself, might get a little educated on aspects and viewpoints that you will not find by sucking down the talking points of the spokespeople you idolize.
For example, if you understand how important it is for physical standards to not be compromised because of the risk for people to lose their lives in situations that could be avoided, would you support that? Would you as a citizen of the nation, put forth your time and energy to ensure that your representatives put forth all possible effort to make sure standards are not lowered. The flip side to that argument is that you might argue that your solution, if physical standards were keeping an individual from a certain job, is that those standards SHOULD be lowered because they institute an unfairness towards one gender?
It is important for you to attempt to consume information and perspectives of WHY physical standards have value. What they are associated with. How they are applicable. And this is just one common sense facet of this issue. The cohesion question is just as important.
Coming into this, Im sure you assumed that since a high ranking general said that he was riding in a humvee with a female operating the weapon in the gun turret, that you assumed that she was trained to use that weapon, that she could be utilized as a machine gunner in an infantry capacity and that she had been trained to operate with that responsibility? That she was already performing the job of an infantry machine gunner, because of that story. And when someone challenged the factual accuracy of that, you might feel they were just attacking women and would support policies that placed that female into a position where she most likely could not succeed because you did not have the correct appreciation of the facts.
You might then look at the truth and what it would really take for her to have an actual machine gunner billet. You might consider the effects of the men around her and how they have been raised in addition to the physical demands that are required for her to do that job correctly and safely, not only for herself but for the other people around her.... those other people possibly being your son, or brother, or father. You might then examine the reason WHY she is being put their to begin with. And after looking at all the facts, you might then be able to asses the risks...
Is it worth having a woman in that position knowing that my son might find himself wounded on foreign land lying next to her needing to be carried 100 meters under fire in order to receive medical attention? Is there such a great benefit to her being on that battlefield, not as a support person, but as the designated individual to shoulder that burden... when modifying standards were being discussed?
Winning battles is the means to the political ends of all wars. Your national security is tied to that reality. Is there some military benefit that you feel is necessary to INCREASE your Armed Forces ability to win these battles with the most minimal of loss of human life, that includes adding MORE RISK to such an endeavor? Is making sure that a female can get another promotion worth that risk?
These are life and death decisions. This isnt about sex, or sexual assault, or women bashing... this is your physical security being provided by the state. This is your family members, or friends stepping into the void in order to defend a nation. This isnt a social experiment... lives are actually in the balance here.
You mention that you will only know its a good move when it actually happens. I say.. if you have $5,000.00 in the bank, money you know you have and its good, then you go buy 5,000 lottery tickets... would you say, "Well, we'll know if it was a good move if I win!"?
How will we know it was a bad move. After a Marine or Soldier dies because a female couldnt get him out? What is the indicator to you that it wasnt smart?
1) we don't usually ban people here. Everyone knows this. People are banned for personal information and recently pedo comments and that's about it. That's our precedent. Does it mean we wouldn't start banning people for all of a sudden having blowjob days where they are all posting blowjob pictures? No. But that's not the fucking type of thing that comes up a lot so we deleted the post and moved the fuck on from it.
2) you honestly think I go to darla over modding issues? how fucking dumb are you? jesus christ . . .
and I dont live at home you retards I haven't lived at home in years.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Man they'd be awfully surprised what you say in the Mod forum.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Yes, but those units you singled out are precisely the ones which are being talked about integrating women into. The rest of the armed forces are currently open to women. At my unit, my enlisted superintendent of operations (an E-9 Chief Master Sgt) is a highly capable woman. One of our four colonels (Director of Support Staff) is a woman, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Asst. Director of Operations (a Lt Col) go on to become the next Vice Commander (The Commander is an active duty position, typically filled from outside of the unit).